MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405861861 · doi:10.1016/j.jmh.2024.100291

Effects of UK hostile environment policies on maternity care for refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants in Camden: Examining the experiences of healthcare professionals and community organisations

2024· article· en· W4405861861 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Poppy Pierce, Haleema Adil, Tiffany Kwok, Catherine Cooke, Deveney Bazinet, Kate Roll, Sara Hillman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Migration and Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsRefugeeHealth professionalsPolitical scienceHealth careCriminologyDisplaced personPublic relationsNursingPublic administrationSociologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Camden's growing refugee, asylum seeker, and undocumented migrant population faces increasing barriers to maternity care access. • Immigration policies undermine NHS care principles and create distrust among migrants. • Healthcare professionals and community organisations exceed remits to ensure migrants access adequate quality maternity care. • Advocacy is needed for healthcare navigator roles and comprehensive training for care providers. The London borough of Camden has long been home for many refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants (RASUs). Over time, it has witnessed an increase in the population of these migrant groups, accompanied by notable changes in the obstacles they encounter when seeking health services, particularly maternity care. We explore how the ‘hostile environment’ policies affect access to and delivery of quality maternity services for RASUs. This study was conducted over eight months (November 2021–July 2022) both remotely and face-to-face, in various locations in Camden and in the Maternity Department at University College London Hospital, UK. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) and community organisations (COs) were identified as two major stakeholders involved in the care provision for RASUs. 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted (with 22 HCPs and 11 COs) to understand their experiences of delivering care to this population. There was consensus among HCPs and COs that the current immigration policies undermined their duty of care, personal morals, and the principles of the NHS. These policies have created a restrictive environment, making it increasingly difficult for migrants to navigate the healthcare system and creating an atmosphere of distrust, propagating fears of being charged. This has led to HCPs and COs going beyond their remits to ensure that RASUs are accessing and engaging with maternity care, regardless of an individual's status and despite any potential repercussions for themselves. In the face of an intensifying hostile environment under the UK government, supporting RASUs cannot be solely reliant on political measures. We need to advocate for healthcare navigator roles, health justice partnerships, specialist teams, and comprehensive training for service providers. HCPs and COs should be adequately supported in their endeavours to ensure RASUs have access to standardised, high-quality maternity care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Migration and HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207